I am one that recognizes that websites are considered personal property and therefore, the owners can pretty much do what they want. They can allow comments or not allow them. They can ban people if they desire to or let every troll and spammer post on their site. I have no problem with that. So what I'm about to write is not about personal property rights, nor is it about the First Amendment, since the First Amendment is about limiting the Federal Congress. This is about Facebook and its clear disregard for its own rules, applying them differently based on whether people are upset about something or not. Recently we posted a picture, seen below, and were blocked for twelve hours. There was no threat made, it isn't hate speech, but is filled with truth.

Following the posting of the picture, sometime about mid-morning on Thursday, Facebook decided to punt us for 12 hours. Obviously this was the result of a couple of people who didn't like the picture.

However, notice a few things. First, the guy in the picture obviously couldn't hit what he would be shooting at. I mean look at that aim! Pitiful. He doesn't know anything about gun safety either. I'm guessing the guy taking his picture should be careful since he has his finger wrapped firmly around the trigger.

Second, notice the truth of what is stated. In the minds of the jihadists Americans are infidels. There is no debate over this. It is the truth.

Obama doesn't seem to believe the 35 terrorists camps in the United States operated by Jamaat Al-Fuqra, aka the Muslims of America, founded by Pakistani Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani is a threat to national security and they sit in our own back yards. I wonder why that is.

Barack Obama is after our guns, despite the rhetoric he has given claiming that he supports the Second Amendment.

In fact, immediately after he and the Democrats were smacked down over their blatant attacks on the Second Amendment, it was a priceless treat for fun owners to watch him act like a two year old who didn't get his way. However, we were promised that they would be back and attack the Second Amendment again. We saw that this past week, following the Washington Navy Yard shootings. There wasn't a wait or a pause, like with Newtown, when it was children who were the victims. No, it was immediate.

With that said, the picture portrays the truth. It doesn't violate any of the Terms of Service of Facebook, so why was it banned? Dr. Sharon Schuetz, an administrator at Breitbart and manager for Lady Patriots, contacted me to inform me the same things had happened to the Breitbart Facebook page due to the same photo being posted.

There is little doubt that Mark Zuckerman of Facebook and his social media owning friends from LinkedIn, Microsoft, PayPal, google, etc., who are committing so much of their own resources to immigration reform through their website fwd.us (leaving the southern borders open for their jihadist friends) are aware of Obama's treason so they couldn't have been too surprised by Tom's revelation in the graphic.

So, why did Facebook get so upset about the picture and the simple phrases Tom Francois posted at the bottom? Why did they come after the Breitbart page when the same picture has been posted on another Facebook page, and they have never said a word, and allowed it to stay on the other page?

When Facebook deleted the page "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children", I wrote an article explaining how they use algorithms with much of their interactions with people. Most of their moderation is done outside the United States by people paid as little as $1 an hour. Facebook uses algorithms to determine who to ban, when, and why. Logically you would think they would be fairer by using these algorithms; however, they still lean a little to the left even if it is machines that do much of it. Though, that doesn't explain why they would go after the admins at Breitbart and leave the other page alone. Does it have something to do with the size of the page? After all, Breitbart has over 125,000 followers, and the other page has 15,000. I doubt that any of us will ever know since Facebook doesn't respect its members enough to treat us like people, and have a real conversation with us.

Someone suggested that they came after us because they didn't like a picture that so clearly exposed the connected dots to so many people. It's one thing to know that Obama's friends consider us foolish American infidels. It's something else to point out that Obama is coming for our guns while arming his al Qaeda friends. Though to point out that Obama is arming them for the Jihad is a powerful statement. It's a true statement, but it's a connection that is still supposed to be a secret. After all, we foolish Americans are still letting him throw us out of the White House and turn it into only God know what. We have foolishly allowed him to fill his administration with American hating Muslim Brotherhood jihadists. I can see where Facebook would get upset that someone would mention Obama and jihad in the same sentence. They're not ready for us to figure that out yet.

Granted, we could stop using Facebook, but in all honesty, it is a great means of marketing. I'm not one that likes to throw out a lot of personal information on Facebook. I think that is unwise, but I don't mind posting articles. However, if Facebook establishes rules, then they should follow them. While many controversial articles have been posted from our site, our Facebook page has not been taken down, it does lead me to believe that Dr. Schuetz's analysis about algorithms is correct. She raises the valid point: Why deal with one page one way and another page that has the same photo another? I'll let the reader decide since Facebook seems incapable of responding to my messages.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.